- This topic has 3 replies, 3 voices, and was last updated 2 weeks, 6 days ago by
.
-
Posts
-
There is a thread on the old RPF by Tarminder, talking about Gut Protocol for Insulin Resistance, Metabolism, and Energy. He linked the following article by Ken Lassesen-
His protocol was based on the idea of constant shifting of antibiotics (both natural and prescription), similar to the idea of “muscle confusion” in weight training. But after looking at the protocol, I wondered if there was a different explanation for Lassesen’s success…… and that being simply taking a much longer course, and a greater total amount of antibiotics.
Imagine a military fort, and say the fort has enough munitions to defend against 80,000 troops. Well, if a gang of 100 marauders attacks, they will be made short work of. Ditto for 1,000 and 10,000. If it were attacked by 50-100,000 troops, the outcome might be more of a coin flip. But if this fort were attacked by 200,000 or 1 million troops, they would surely fall to the invaders.
Now, if we didn’t know the numbers of attackers, it might be pretty easy to come up with an idea of “bullet resistant troops” attacking the fort. But if you know the numbers of attackers and ability to defend, that idea goes away pretty quickly.
The thing is, when dealing with bacteria, we really don’t know the numbers in any one person. If you take two people at random, one might have 10,000 times the bacterial load of the other.
Lassesen’s protocol looks to be an 18 week protocol (he lists 9 weeks, and then suggests repeating it), and he says he took 200mg of minocycline a day, “ongoing.” Considering 2 weeks is normally considered a “long” antibiotic regimen, this step already makes this protocol a marathon, and the amount of antibiotics taken massive. On top of that, he is using other natural antibiotics and things like biofilm disruptors. He’s like a fort that is getting that 80,000 rounds of munitions on a daily basis, plus getting lots of extra ways to weaken or thwart the enemy.
This may be something people want to keep in mind if they want to design their own protocol, centered around Peat’s ideas and principles. You could potentially use the first generation antibiotics that Peat spoke well of (penicillin, tetracyclines, macrolides), also use Flowers of Sulphur as an antifungal and antibiotic, do some rounds of activated charcoal to help clean things out, use the antimicrobial foods like carrot/bamboo shoots/mushrooms/artichokes, and also onion and garlic, maybe look into biofilm disruptors, as well as other natural antibiotics listed in the Lassesen article, along with cyproheptadine (Haidut mentioned this could help increase the effectiveness of antibiotics, since bacteria communicate with serotonin), and other anti-inflammatories. And each a no starch diet. And also find some way to keep iron low (or lower a high iron burden), as E.D. Weinberg stated that sufficient iron can totally inactivate antibiotics. Oh, and maybe add Vitamin E, since the Shute Brothers claimed it was bacteriostatic in nature. And other things that make sense, based on your own research. You could swap some of these things in and out over a longer course.
Just some ideas.
I agree with you <span class=”atwho-inserted” contenteditable=”false” data-atwho-at-query=”@Zack”>@Zack-Vegas </span>that the concept of a sterile gut is a controversial one in terms of mainstream medicines as well as alternative medicines approach to this topic.
As of late Dr Mercola has come to a viewpoint that I think may be from some of Dr Peat’s work. Again involving a balance of micro biome bacteria but on the viewpoint that gram negative bacteria oxygenate the bowel whereas gram positive bacteria produce carbon dioxide.
Dr Mercola surmises that it is the oxygenation that allows for endotoxin to enter the bloodstream breaking through the gut wall barrier, whereas CO2 prevents this from occurring.This reminded me of the CO2 levels being higher at higher levels above sea level and the lower amounts of chronic disease seen in the populations living at this altitude. I think the hypothesis may have merit given oxygens known toxicity seen in the COVID-19 intubation response protocol. This lead to bacterial pneumonia and then eventually death from sepsis.
Given that this balance can be easily disrupted perhaps the sterile gut is the best approach, but I am unsure how one would be able to maintain it without a complete reliance upon pharmaceutical antibiotics.
Mercola’s ideas are interesting, but I was suggesting that the total amount is more important than anything else. It could be that at certain levels of bacterial load, that diversity of species makes a difference. Beyond a certain level, however, diversity of species might basically be irrelevant, as there would be excessive amounts of endotoxin, serotonin, lactate and such produced by the sheer volume of bacteria, regardless of species.
I don’t think a sterile gut is even possible, outside of a lab setting. But also, I’m not suggesting its necessary, either. Imagine a bacteria scale from 0-100, with 0 being a sterile gut. While 0 would produce the ideal level of endotoxin (that being none), pretty much any level from 1-10 might produce a level that organs like the liver could easily handle. Maybe from 11-20, problems could occur, and diversity might matter more. From 20-50, more pronounced disease symptoms might show up, and diversity of species becomes irrelevant, and over 50 you have serious sepsis issues, again going up the scale. Being at a 5 on this scale would be fine for basically everyone.
I also think a long term course of antibiotics might be useful, and I don’t think they would have to be “forever,” not in the vast majority of cases. Things like higher body temperature, metabolism, and better stomach acid production all work to keep gut bacteria in check. If a course lasting a couple months, say, is used to thwack down bacterial load to 10% of what it originally was, that would mean about 10% of the endotoxin/serotonin/lactate and such would be produced. At this level, metabolism might naturally increase, leading once again to the natural ability of the body to keep gut bacteria in check, no more antibiotics needed.
Some so called “probiotics” may actually have more antibiotic type activity. Lactobacillus is anti-inflammatory (whether alive or dead), and lowering inflammation can help lower bacterial count. Mutaflor is another interesting “probiotic,” and it’s known action is more “antibiotic,” almost like a hired bacterial mercenary.
“Mutaflor is not a traditional probiotic in that it is not a form of bacteria that you take hoping that it benefits and helps your internal gut flora through the addition of good bacteria. In fact, quite the opposite. Mutaflor is a bacteria that actually kills excess bad bacteria in the gut.
Mutaflor actually operates by starving forms of bad bacteria in your gut of oxygen; thus killing them off. This is why most users report diarrhea when first beginning use. This is the result of the bad bacteria dying off, exiting the body, and the body re-adjusting.”
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
Author
